Skip to main content

Full text of "People's Pleasure Park Co., Inc., et al. v. Rohleder. June 11, 1908. [61 S. E. 794.]"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


dence of selling by retail without a license, and Act March. 15, 1906 
(Acts 1906, p. 411, c. 230), providing that the possession of the 
United States internal revenue tax receipt for the sale of liquors 
shall be prima facie evidence of the sale of liquor, etc., a disputable 
presumption of guilt of accused is shown on proof that he held a 
United States license as a retail liquor dealer, and in the absence 
of exculpatory evidence a conviction is proper. 

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 29, Intoxi- 
cating Liquors, §§ 278, 321.] 

4. Criminal Law — Trial — Right to Confront Witnesses — Constitu- 
tional Law. — Bill of Rights, Const, art. 1, § 8 (Code 1904, p. ccix), 
guaranteeing the right of accused to be confronted with the accusers 
and witnesses, does not exclude proper documentary evidence, and 
Acts 1901-02, p. 601, c. 516, and Act March 15, 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 
411, c. 236), relating to the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, are 
not unconstitutional on the ground that proof that accused held a 
United States license as a retail liquor dealer shall be presumptive 
proof of his guilt, which proof may be furnished by a copy of the 
record in the office of a United States internal revenue collector. 

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal 
Law, § 1540.] 


June 11, 1908. 
[61 S. E. 794.] 

1. Deeds — Construction — Conditions Subsequent. — A condition 
subsequent is not favored in law, since it tends to destroy vested in- 
terests, and such condition will not be extended beyond its terms, 
and a party asking a forfeiture for breach of condition must bring 
himself clearly within the terms of the condition, and this rule is 
applied where a grantor or his heirs seek to take advantage of a 
breach of a condition subsequent, and is even more applicable where 
its benefits are invoked by one not a party to the deed or convey- 
ance containing the condition. 

2. Corporations — Existence Apart from Stockholders — "Corpora- 
tions." — A corporation is an artificial person, like the state, having 
a distinct existence from that of its stockholders and directors. 

[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 2, 
pp. 1608-1621; vol. 8, pp. 7619, 7620.] 

3. Covenants — Restrictive Covenants — Breach — "Vesting in Col- 
ored Persons" — What Constitutes. — A tract of land was divided up 
into a number of building lots, and each deed contained a covenant 
that the title to the land should never vest in a person of African 
descent or colored person, but some of the lots were thereafter con- 
veyed to a corporation composed of negroes, who purchased the land 

1908.] NORTON COAL CO. V. MURPHY. 549 

for the purpose of establishing an amusement park thereon for col- 
ored people; the corporation knowing of the covenant in the deed 
at the time of purchasing. Held, in an action to cancel the deed to 
the amusement park and enjoin the sale, that the transfer to the 
corporation composed of negroes for the purpose stated was not a 
breach of the covenant that the land should never vest in "colored 
persons," even though all the members and stockholders of the cor- 
poration were negroes, since the corporation was an entity distinct 
from its members, and was not a "colored person" within the cov- 

Sept. 10, 1908. 
[62 S. E. 266.] 

1. Brokers — Contract for Services — Performance — Right to Com- 
missions. — Plaintiff procured a purchaser for certain of defendant's 
property at $6,100, the price fixed, payable $100 earnest money, $400 
on delivery of the deed, and 56 notes each for $100, payable monthly, 
to be executed by the purchaser, complainant to receive for his serv- 
ices $305 to be paid out of the last three of the notes so given. The 
purchaser paid the earnest money on the execution of the contract, 
but refused to accept a deed until certain defects in the title were 
cured. Defendant insisted that the title was good, and refused to 
remove the alleged defects, though the purchaser was financially re- 
sponsible, was acting in good faith and anxious to obtain a good title. 
Defendant, admitting the validity and enforceability of the contract, 
permitted the purchaser to rescind, and return to him the earnest 
money, without complainant's consent. Held, that complainant was 
entitled to the contract commissions. 

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 8, Brokers, § 92.] 

2. Same — Interest. — Where a broker was only entitled to commis- 
sions out of the last three of a series of notes to be given by the 
purchaser for the property which were to be executed as of Septem- 
ber 1, 1902, and would mature on the first days of July, August, and 
September, 1907, the broker on his principal's failure to complete 
the contract was only entitled to recover interest on the contract 
commissions from August 1, 1907. 

Sept. 10, 1908. 
[62 S. E. 268.] 
1. Master and Servant — Mines — Injury to Servant — Place to Work. 

— Where defendant's mine foreman, whose duty it was to inspect the 
mine, had been notified that the roof of the haulway where plaintiff